dopkick t1_itc8yur wrote
Can the romanticizing of vacant properties stop already? Pretty sure I’ve seen vacant properties pitched on here as the solution to damn near everything - homelessness, drug addiction, poverty, crime, etc. I’m sure they’ll be the answer to COVID by the end of the year.
I feel like a fair number of people have never seen these largely abandoned neighborhoods. The homes are generally shells full of hazards, at best. You’ll see trees growing out of windows and where the roof should be. The remaining bricks are of questionable integrity, with some homes having portions crumble. The remains of the interior are often full of lead, needles, and garbage.
These places are generally not close to very much. They’ll be smack dab in the middle of food deserts dryer than the Sahara. Nearby jobs will be nonexistent and transportation options will be limited. Oh and for funsies let’s put groups historically reluctant to call the police (immigration concerns or whatever) in locations surrounded by high crime. What could possibly go wrong?
This whole bullshit about vacant properties being the answer to everything but those dastardly rich Texans keep buying them up and prevent Baltimore from turning a corner is dumb. It’s starting to approach COVID-19 Bill Gates 5G mind control vaccine level of stupidity.
Xanny t1_itcrvm5 wrote
I live on Pratt St and there are plenty of vacants around here but its not a food desert, we have the Food Depot and Pricerite nearby, plus the area is serviced by Citylink Purple and Blue and the cirulator orange terminates at the Pricerite. I think areas like this definitely make sense to put a concentrated effort into rehabbing the vacants, especially when all it really needs to be accessible is some protected bike lanes into downtown.
dopkick t1_itctfla wrote
Completely agreed. There is plenty of housing stock that is actually close to some stuff - transportation, groceries, jobs, etc. Why not start there? I truly don't understand this weird obsession with the abandoned city blocks full of homes that look like a warzone.
sllewgh t1_itd3vj2 wrote
>I truly don't understand this weird obsession with the abandoned city blocks full of homes that look like a warzone.
You're the one with that obsession. No specific location was ever given for where in the city this might happen. You're the one assuming that's where it would be.
Mikel32 t1_iti9vp6 wrote
Pratt St resident here as well. What we saw happen in Highlandtown a decade or so ago is slowly happening in Mount Clare/Union Square/Hollins Market. We are getting a bad name over here due to the drug crime. We are also not a food desert nor are we a night life desert. We have a handful of good bars and restaurants that are not gaining traction because the word of mouth is to be afraid of anything west of MLK. Don’t listen to the influencers hyping of Atlas bullshit or bad bougie Canton spots.
Xanny t1_itjgg88 wrote
That being said, MLK is an abomination that needs to be like, put underground or something? I have no idea. Compare President St to MLK and its obvious one was made to cut half the city off. It isn't just a matter of trying to reduce it, maybe build bridges over it?
blooperduper33 t1_itcmcsh wrote
I mean, they are talking about once they are fixed up right? Not like moving people in destroyed houses? Are you suggesting we leave them destroyed and just fully abandon these neighborhoods forever?
hijinked t1_itcqz91 wrote
A lot of these are beyond repair.
jabbadarth t1_itculj9 wrote
And even the ones that are repairable would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands to fix and take months for each one.
More often than not demolishing and buying new is a cheaper and easier option especially once the roof fails enough to les water in.
Douseigh t1_itgvlmz wrote
And each day they age more and more, in a generation these will be like rehabbing that old ass farm house in the woods
dopkick t1_itcqwx5 wrote
For now, yes - bulldoze them and turn them into open spaces with local plants for pollinators. There is plenty of housing stock that is not in the absolute worst possible areas that can be rehabbed for a fraction of the cost and with a fraction of the challenges.
This will also, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden on maintaining public services in these areas. We have water/sewer/gas/etc. in place for a population over double Baltimore's actual population and it's all aging. Low pressure gas lines are being replaced with medium pressure lines because the old lines have corroded to where they are full of holes that are plugged by dirt.
Unlike many other cities, Baltimore is NOT in high demand and land does not command a premium value. There is plenty of supply, even if there is a large spike in demand. We don't need ambitious programs to rehab the absolute worst blocks in the city.
Xanny t1_itcrpxj wrote
It would make sense in the short term to subsidize relocating straggler residents and bulldozing the highest vacancy rate blocks (80%+). The city can take the land and sell it out if someone wants to redevelop, but for now leaving them up just perpetuates crime and destitution.
ParetoEfficiency t1_itd43po wrote
I think you hit the nail on the head. People that think these homes are worth saving should spend some time on a construction site and realize how costly, dangerous, and totally not worth it would be to try to rehab these blocks.
sllewgh t1_itcpgxt wrote
Typical unfounded, unspecific pessimism from someone offering no solutions. Yes, many vacant properties are not habitable, but many absolutely are. Vacants in poor condition are not an argument against this type of policy until we've run out of good ones.
dopkick t1_itcr5wb wrote
The vacant properties in good shape and are inhabitable are NOT the ones in the picture in the article. Also, the article states...
> Seeding abandoned city neighborhoods with enough immigrant households to build real communities is just an idea now. But it is under serious consideration.
Those abandoned city neighborhoods are NOT the ones with habitable vacant properties.
sllewgh t1_itcrk05 wrote
So your opposition to this policy is rooted in the condition of the vacant in the picture? Do I have that right?
dopkick t1_itct195 wrote
Did you conveniently miss the part where I quoted
> Seeding abandoned city neighborhoods with enough immigrant households to build real communities is just an idea now. But it is under serious consideration.
Because that picture IS a picture of the mentioned "abandoned city neighborhoods." Don't take my word for it, go visit yourself. I promise you there will be abundant parking available.
Also did you miss the part of history where building isolated high density housing for marginalized populations led to crime and decay and those are now being torn down in favor of mixed income housing? That happened across the country, including here in Baltimore. Turns out "let's throw the poor people facing significant challenges and with limited resources into camps" wasn't actually a recipe for success.
I really don't see how you could possibly argue in favor of putting a bunch of Afghan refugees, as an example, in an area with no jobs, poor transportation, and plenty of crime. They already had their entire lives uprooted and face tons of barriers to success. Do we need to make it even harder? Why can't they be within walking distance of Fells Point, as an example, so they can have employment options available to them without the need for a car or figuring out how to navigate some shitty bus system? There's plenty of housing stock available for that.
sllewgh t1_itctjzn wrote
Ok, but do you understand that this is a news article and the vacants in that picture are an editor illustrating the content of the article, and not literally the exact units they're "considering"? You're just making up your own facts here about where, when, and how this would be done.
dopkick t1_itcu5am wrote
So you're saying the author didn't intend to refer to abandoned city blocks despite referring to them in both words and the picture? And the author instead meant to refer to entirely different properties instead but provided no contextual clues to this, leaving it as an exercise to the reader to jump through hoops to figure out what is actually intended? Brings back memories of textbooks with "the proof is left as an exercise to the reader" kind of statements.
sllewgh t1_itcvasx wrote
>So you're saying the author didn't intend to refer to abandoned city blocks despite referring to them in both words and the picture?
Here is what you said:
>Because that picture IS a picture of the mentioned "abandoned city neighborhoods."
That's false. The article is not referring to the homes in the picture, it's referring to vacants in general. The article does not reference any specific locations this would happen whatsoever, so all your criticism is based on facts you invented yourself.
There are plenty of habitable, good vacants in this city to be filled.
dopkick t1_itcvq9v wrote
The article literally says
> Seeding abandoned city neighborhoods with enough immigrant households to build real communities is just an idea now. But it is under serious consideration.
I think you need to visit these abandoned city neighborhoods. The places that are generally habitable are not abandoned. Run down with some vacants, yes, but not abandoned.
sllewgh t1_itcwiwt wrote
I've visited them plenty. I've gone door to door talking to poor folks in just about every area of the city. I help run a community garden in Harlem Park. I've personally observed the purchase, renovation, and occupation of a vacant as described in this article. I've helped establish community land trusts and I helped fight to secure a permanent source of funding from the city for projects like this. How about you take a look at your own ignorance before you assume mine?
Plenty of people are living decent lives in these neighborhoods you're writing off. There are plenty of problems to be solved, sure, but you've got the audacity to accuse me of ignorance when you don't know a damn thing about the people actually living in places like this.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments